# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Indigenous peoples" is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. Often, "Aboriginal peoples" is also used.

The Canadian Constitution recognizes 3 groups of Aboriginal peoples: Indians (more commonly referred to as First Nations), Inuit and Métis. These are 3 distinct peoples with unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs.

More than 1.67 million people in Canada identify themselves as an Aboriginal person, according to the 2016 Census. Aboriginal peoples are:

the fastest growing population in Canada - grew by 42.5% between 2006 and 2016

the youngest population in Canada - about 44% were under the age of 25 in 2016

Services and information

Related links

Features

Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Call 1-855-242-3310 or chat online at hopeforwellness.ca.

Thank you for your feedback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aboriginal peoples is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. The Canadian constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal people: Indians (commonly referred to as First Nations), Métis and Inuit. These are three distinct peoples with unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs.

# data[].attributes.headline
What helps reduce socioeconomic inequality for Indigenous Peoples?

# data[].attributes.subject
What helps reduce socioeconomic inequality for Indigenous Peoples?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Using three nationally representative Aboriginal Peoples Surveys (2001, 2006 and 2012, n = 68,040), we examined income-related inequalities in self-perceived poor/fair general health status among Indigenous adults (18+) living off-reserve in Canada. We used the relative and absolute concentration indices (, respectively) to quantify income-related inequalities in health for men and women, within the three Indigenous populations (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit), and in different geographic regions. Moreover, we performed decomposition analysis to determine factors that explain income-related inequality in health within the Indigenous peoples living off-reserve in Canada. The prevalence of poor/fair health status among the Indigenous population living off-reserve increased from 18% in 2001 to 22% in 2012. The extent of pro-rich relative (absolute) income-related inequalities in health increased by 23% (42%) from 2001 to 2012. Income-related inequalities in health increased statistically significantly within First Nations and Métis populations as well as in Atlantic provinces, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Territories. Decomposition analyses indicated that, besides income itself, occupational status and educational attainment were the most important factors contributing to the pro-rich distribution of health among Indigenous peoples living off-reserve. Growing socioeconomic inequalities in health among Indigenous peoples should warrant more attention. Policies designed to address the broader array of RC and AC social determinants of health may mitigate the continuing inequalities in health among Indigenous peoples living off-reserve in Canada.

Introduction

There is great interest in reducing health inequalities across different social groups in Canada [1,2] and globally [3]. This interest was further invigorated by the work of the World Health Organization's Commission on the Social Determinants of Health and the subsequent Rio Political Declaration in 2011 [4], in which participating countries, including Canada, committed to reducing health inequalities [1,5]. In fact, achieving health equity - eliminating unfair inequalities in health - is now considered as one of the strategic priorities for many jurisdictions across Canada [6,7].

Notwithstanding several federal and provincial initiatives and political commitments to reduce health inequalities, several studies [[8], [9], [10], [11]] have documented persistent differences in health by socioeconomic status (SES) among the general population in Canada. The extent of the SES-health gradient was found to be significantly higher in Canada compared to most European countries [12]. A recent report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (2015), Trends in Income-Related Health Inequalities in Canada, showed that inequalities are persistent between richer and poorer Canadians for a broad set of health indicators and health risk factors (e.g., chronic disease, measures of well-being, access to housing and food, smoking and obesity) [10]. Additionally, work by Hajizadeh and colleagues [11] suggested that socioeconomic inequality in health has widened over the past one and half decades in Canada, especially among women.

Indigenous peoples in Canada currently experience the poorest level of health status, and their health indicators are often similar to that of developing countries [13]. The persistent inequalities in health between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada are pervasive for a range of health measures, including life expectancy, incidence of chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes and obesity) [14], rates of infectious diseases (in particular tuberculosis and childhood Respiratory Syncytial Virus bronchiolitis), and prevalence of substance abuse, suicide and addiction [[15], [16], [17], [18]]. A growing body of research has demonstrated how these inequalities are linked with various historical and contemporary aspects of colonization that discriminate against Indigenous groups in Canada [19,20]. In 2015, the federal government committed to implementing the Calls to Action outlined by the final report of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada [21], including calls to "close the gaps in health outcomes" between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

In addition to facing the disproportionate burden of health issues, Indigenous peoples also continue to be the most socioeconomically disadvantaged and marginalized [22,23]. In 2006, non-Indigenous Canadians had higher income, employment and education levels compared to the three main Indigenous groups in Canada, with Métis faring better than First Nations or Inuit [24]. With the exception of the increased number of Indigenous women who had completed a university degree between 1996 and 2006, these socioeconomic inequalities had not diminished over the previous 10 years [24]. Similar to the health issues faced by Indigenous peoples, socioeconomic outcomes have also been linked with various aspects of colonization. For example, analyses of 2006 data of Indigenous peoples living off-reserve revealed that income, employment status, and educational attainment mediated the effect of personal attendance at Indian residential school attendance on health [25]. Likewise, analyses of the same 2006 data set showed that the intergenerational effects of parental residential attendance on their children's school success was also mediated by socioeconomic status [26]. The Indian residential school system was only one key aspect of the governments' explicit goal of assimilation, and numerous other past and ongoing policies have also contributed to the socioeconomic and health gaps Indigenous peoples in Canada face [21,24].

The monitoring of socioeconomic inequalities in health plays a significant role in the assessment of progress toward the commitments made by governments to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in health [27]. Furthermore, identifying the factors accounting for socioeconomic inequalities in health is essential to implementing effective interventions and policies to address these inequalities [27,28]. While there is much documented information about inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations [[14], [15], [16], [17], [18]], the extent of socioeconomic-related inequalities between Indigenous groups have not been examined. It is important to explore such between-group inequalities within Indigenous populations, considering the significant differences in cultures, collective histories, and present-day circumstances between First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples [15,29]. Even within each of these three main Indigenous groups in Canada, there is significant variation across tribal groups, communities, and/or regions. While some Indigenous peoples are thriving despite their collective history of colonization, others are still struggling to heal and regain wellness [30,31]. Keeping such variation in mind, a critical first step to addressing ongoing inequities is identifying risk and resilience factors that influence the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples. Using information from three waves of a nationally representative Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS, 2001, 2006 and 2012), we aim to contribute to filling the gaps in the literature by studying the extent and socioeconomic factors accounting for inequalities in self-perceived poor/fair health status (the most widely-used and well-validated measure of health status [32]) among First Nations, Métis, and Inuit adults living off-reserve over the period between 2001 and 2012.

Section snippets

Data

Our analysis is based on data from confidential master files of three waves of the Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS, 2001, 2006 and 2012) conducted by Statistics Canada. The APS is a large national cross-sectional survey that collects unique and detailed data on the social and economic conditions (e.g., education, employment, health, language, income, housing and mobility) from Indigenous peoples (i.e., First Nations, Métis, and Inuit), aged 6 years and older, mainly living off-reserve in urban,

Trends in the prevalence of poor/fair health status among Indigenous populations

Table 1 presents the prevalence of self-rated poor/fair health status among off-reserve Indigenous adults over the period between 2001 and 2012. The results showed that the prevalence of self-reported poor/fair health status increased from 18.2% in 2001 to 21.7% in 2012 among off-reserve Indigenous peoples. As reported in Table 1, the prevalence of self-reported poor/fair health status stratified by sex, Indigenous groups, and region also increased over the study period.

The prevalence of

Discussion

Although the existence of socioeconomic inequalities in health has been well-documented among the general Canadian population [[8], [9], [10], [11], [12],[67], [68], [69], [70]], few studies have assessed such socioeconomic differences in health among Indigenous populations in Canada. Using information from three waves of a nationally representative APS, we examined the extent and factors accounting for inequalities in self-perceived poor/fair health status over the period between 2001 and

Conclusions

Although the existence of socioeconomic inequalities in health has been well-documented among the general population of Canada [[8], [9], [10], [11], [12],[67], [68], [69], [70]], few studies have assessed such socioeconomic differences in health among Indigenous populations. In this study, for the first time, we measured and decomposed income-related inequalities in health among Indigenous peoples living off-reserve in Canada over the period between 2001 and 2012. Caveats considered, our

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Authors' contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study, Mohammad Hajizadeh and Min Hu performed the statistical analysis, all authors interpreted results, Mohammad Hajizadeh drafted the manuscript, and Min Hu, Amy Bombay and Yukiko Asada helped with revisions. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors acknowledge funding for this research provided by the Faculty of Health - Research Development Grant, Dalhousie University and Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation (NSHRF) Establishment Grant program (Grant Number: 1017).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Statistics Canada's Atlantic Research Data Centre (ARDC) at Dalhousie University for facilitating the access to the Aboriginal Peoples Surveys (APS). We also thank Ardeshir Sepehri, the participants of the 2017 Canadian Economics Association conference, the 2017 Canadian Public Health Association conference and 12th World Congress on Health Economics for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. As well, comments from seminar participants at the

Public Health Agency of Canada
Reducing health inequalities: a challenge for our times

CIHR and IPPH. Health Equity Matters - IPPH Strategic Plan - 2009-2014. Ottawa, ON:...

World Health Organization
Rio political declaration on social determinants of health

Canadian Institute for Health Information
Trends in income-related health inequalities in Canada: summary report

Health Council of Canada
The health status of Canada's first nations, métis, and inuit peoples

The embodiment of inequity: health disparities in aboriginal Canada

Truth and Reconcilliation Commission of Canada. Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: summary of the final report of the truth and reconcilliation

United Nations General Assembly
Draft programme of action for the Second Internation Decade of the World's Indigenous People

The lifetime effect of residential school attendance on indigenous health status

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Socioeconomic inequalities in health among Indigenous peoples living off-reserve in Canada: Trends and determinants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using three nationally representative Aboriginal Peoples Surveys (2001, 2006 and 2012, n = 68,040), we examined income-related inequalities in self-perceived poor/fair general health status among Indigenous adults (18+) living off-reserve in Canada. We used the relative and absolute concentration indices (, respectively) to quantify income-related inequalities in health for men and women, within the three Indigenous populations (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit), and in different geographic regions.

# data[].attributes.headline
What factors cause socioeconomic inequality for Indigenous communities?

# data[].attributes.subject
What factors cause socioeconomic inequality for Indigenous communities?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Compendium Report to the Department's 2023 Annual Report to Parliament.

Table of contents

List of tables

Table 1: Comparison of the gap in median income 2015 to 2020 (adjusted), Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 2: Comparison of the gap in median individual income, 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 3: Number of people living in a low-income situation, 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 4: Comparison of the gap in the percentage living in a low-income situation 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 5: Comparison of the gap in percentage living in a low-income situation 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 6: Number of individuals employed, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 7: Comparison of the gap in employment rate 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 8: Comparison of the gap in employment rate 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 9: Comparison of median employment income (adjusted) 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 10: Comparison of median employment income 2015 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 11: Number of people with at least a high school credential, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 12: Comparison of the percentage of people with at least a high school credential 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 13: Comparison of the gap in the percentage of pepole with at least a high school credential 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 14: Number of people with a university degree, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 15: Comparison of the gap in the percentage of people with a university degree 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Table 16: Comparison of the percentage with a university degree 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada (Five-Year Change)

Table 17: Number of households residing in a dwelling classified as crowded, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 18: Comparison of the percentage of dwellings classified as crowded 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 19: Number of households residing in dwellings in need of major repair, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 20: Comparison of the percentage of dwellings in need of major repair 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 21: Number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children comprising the total population of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2016 to 2021, Canada

Table 22: Comparison of the percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Table 23: Number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people capable of holding a conversation in an Indigenous language, 2016 to 2021, Canada

Table 24: Number of custody admissions of individuals with Indigenous and non-Indigenous identity, 2016 to 2017 to 2020 to 2021, Canada

Table 25: Comparison of the employment rate, 2016 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, urban areas, Canada

Table 26: Summary of the size and direction of the change in gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations from 2016 to 2021 for all domains, Canada

List of figures

Figure 1: Distribution and number of Indigenous people in Canada by province and territory, 2021

Figure 2: Composition of the Indigenous population in Canada by province and territory, 2021

Figure 3: Median individual income, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 4: Median individual income 2005 to 2020 (adjusted), Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 5: Median individual income, 2020, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 6: Median individual income, 2020, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 7: Median individual income, 2020, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by Inuit region

Figure 8: Median individual income, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada

Figure 9: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 10: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2005 to 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 11: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2020, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 12: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2020, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 13: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2020, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, by Inuit region

Figure 14: Percentage living in a low-income situation, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, by gender, Canada

Figure 15: Employment rate, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 16: Employment rate, 2001 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 17: Employment rate, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 18: Employment rate, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 19: Employment rate, 2021, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by Inuit region

Figure 20: Employment rate, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada

Figure 21: Median employment income, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 22: Median employment income, 2005 to 2020 (adjusted), Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 23: Median employment income, 2020, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 24: Median employment income, 2020, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 25: Median employment income, 2020, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by Inuit region

Figure 26: Median employment income, 2020, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada

Figure 27: Percentage of people with at least a high school credential, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 28: Gap in high school completion (in percentage points) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35+ and 25 to 64, 2021, Canada

Figure 29: Percentage of people with at least a high school credential, 2001 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 30: Percentage of people with at least a high school credential, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 31: Percentage of people with at least a high school credential, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 32: Percentage with at least a high school credential, 2021, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by Inuit region

Figure 33: Percentage of people with at least a high school credential, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada

Figure 34: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 35: Gap in university completion (in percentage points) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 34 and 25 to 64, 2021, Canada

Figure 36: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2001 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Figure 37: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 38: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 39: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2021, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by region

Figure 40: Percentage of people with a university degree, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, by gender, Canada

Figure 41: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 42: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2001 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 43: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 44: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 45: Percentage of dwellings classified as crowded, 2021, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 46: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 47: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2001 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 48: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 49: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 50: Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair, 2021, Inuit and non-Indigenous populations, by Inuit region

Figure 51: Percentage of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children comprising the total population of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, Canada

Figure 52: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 53: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2011 to 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Canada

Figure 54: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 55: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, Métis and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Figure 56: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, Canada

Figure 57: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2001 to 2021, Canada

Figure 58: Percentage of First Nations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by region

Figure 59: Percentage of Métis with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by region

Figure 60: Percentage of Inuit with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by region

Figure 61: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by gender, Canada

Figure 62: Percentage of Indigenous populations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, aged 0 to 19 and aged 20+, Canada

Figure 63: Custody admissions associated with Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in 2021 to 2022 as a percentage of their respective 2021 Census populations, Canada

Figure 64: Percentage of custody admissions of individuals with Indigenous and non-Indigenous identity, 2016 to 2017 to 2020 to 2021, Canada

Figure 65: Comparison of total and urban employment rates, 2021, Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 25 to 64, Canada

Executive summary

Keywords: Indigenous Peoples, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, income, employment, family, culture, Indigenous languages, housing, foster care, justice, incarceration.

This report serves as a compendium to the Department's Annual Report to Parliament and provides an update on the 2020 report using data from the 2021 census cycle. It provides a broad overview of the socio-economic gaps between First Nations, Inuit and Métis populations and the non-Indigenous population in Canada. It covers a wide range of social and economic variables that can be linked primarily to data collected as part of the Census of Population. It highlights not only the gaps that exist today, but also the evolution of those gaps over time. The report also acknowledges that while progress has been made, much work remains to address the ongoing challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples and communities and to advance meaningful reconciliation.

In Canada, the Census of Population is conducted every five years. In 2022, data from the 2021 Census of Population were made available. This report focuses on a subset of these data and examines indicators related to income, employment, education, housing, foster care and Indigenous languages. Indicators related to incarceration are also examined using data from the most recent Adult Correctional Services Survey. As new data on the health domains included in the 2020 report have yet to be published, the health indicators are excluded from this report.

Indigenous Peoples in Canada face significant and long-standing socio-economic gaps when compared to the non-Indigenous population. These gaps have been shaped by a long history of colonialism, discrimination and marginalization, which have had a profound impact on Indigenous people and continue to affect their lives today. Although gaps remain, significant work is being done to narrow them and improve conditions. Continued measurement of these socio-economic gaps is important as it helps determine whether progress is being made over time. It can also help demonstrate whether existing programs and policies are properly designed and resourced. Lastly, it can help ensure accountability of those who design and implement programs, policies and calls for reflection to clearly and transparently define what progress means.

Overall, median individual income was higher in 2020Footnote 1 than in 2015 for all Indigenous groups, even after accounting for inflation. Although a similar proportion of individuals were employed compared to 2016, those who were employed made more, bringing home an additional $800 to $4,200 a year in income after adjusting for inflation. Increased income means fewer low-income households. Between the non-Indigenous population and each of the Indigenous groups, there was a clear narrowing of gaps, by 31.8 to 46.5%. The total number of Indigenous people living in a low-income situation dropped from 471,560 in 2015 to 335,560 in 2020. Overall, 136,000 fewer Indigenous people (60,190 Registered Indians living on reserve, 45,030 Registered Indians living off reserve, 8,975 Non-Status Indians, 2,840 Inuit and 18,965 Métis) were living in a low-income situation over 2015. In addition to contextualizing the historic implications of the pandemic on the socio-economic well-being of all Canadians, Census 2026 will be important to determine whether there have been lasting changes in these gaps beyond the availability of government benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Improving Indigenous education is a crucial step towards closing the socio-economic gaps and achieving substantive equality in recognizing that additional service supports may be required to enable Indigenous children to achieve equal outcomes. Among those 25 to 64 years of age with at least a high school education, a small narrowing of the gaps was observed for Registered Indians living off reserve and Non-Status Indians, while a large narrowing of the gap was seen for Métis. In total, there were 80,280 more Indigenous people with a high school education in 2021 (925 Registered Indians living on reserve, 26,150 Registered Indians living off reserve, 25,545 Non-Status Indians, 1,730 Inuit and 25,930 Métis). Increases in high school completion are important as it often represents a critical step to employment and higher education. From 2016 to 2021, there was a widening of the gap for all Indigenous groups in the proportion of the population with a university degree. Although an additional 47,980 Indigenous people (4,985 Registered Indians living on reserve, 14,630 Registered Indians living off reserve, 9,200 Non-Status Indians, 890 Inuit and 18,275 Métis) obtained a university education over 2016, the non-Indigenous population saw greater gains in university completion during the same time period.

Housing quality and conditions generally improved for Indigenous people from 2016 to 2021; however, the narrowing of the gap in the proportion of dwellings that were crowded was due in part to increases in crowding for the non-Indigenous population. Overall, the total number of Indigenous households experiencing crowding was relatively flat from 2016 (25,220 dwellings) to 2021 (25,345 dwellings). Both Métis and Non-Status Indians had lower proportions of crowded dwellings than the non-Indigenous population in 2016 and 2021. There were also substantial improvements in the proportion of dwellings requiring major repairs. From 2016 to 2021, there were 3,715 fewer dwellings associated with Indigenous people that required major repairs.

Indigenous children continue to be overrepresented in foster care. The census data collection method identifies only children in foster care who reside in a private home. It excludes those in institutions, group homes or other care arrangements. The proportion of Registered Indians, Non-Status Indians and Métis children in foster care remained fairly stable over the period. There was an increase of almost one percentage point for Inuit children. In total, there were 17,410 Indigenous children in foster care in 2016 compared to 17,320 in 2021.

In addition to the socio-economic gaps, the declines in Indigenous language knowledge are noteworthy. In 2021, there were over 70 Indigenous languages spoken in Canada. For more than 20 (28.6%) of those languages, 500 or fewer people reported speaking them as their mother tongue. Overall, 243,155 individuals could conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, 188,905 people reported having at least one Indigenous mother tongue and 182,925 reported speaking an Indigenous language at home at least on a regular basis. Indigenous languages are a vital part of Canada's cultural and linguistic diversity and are essential to Indigenous Peoples' identity, culture and well-being. Many of the Indigenous languages in Canada are endangered, at risk of extinction due to the impacts of colonialism, residential schools and ongoing discrimination.

Indigenous Peoples in Canada continue to be overrepresented in the criminal justice system, as both victims and offenders. Reporting on custody admissions is limited to a pan-Indigenous identifier. From 2016 to 2021, the percentage of Indigenous adults who entered a correctional facility for remand or who were sentenced to custody or a community supervision program increased slightly from 29.9% to 31.2%. However, the total number of these admissions decreased considerably during the same period, with the number of admissions for Indigenous adults dropping from 74,823 in 2016 to 46,633 in 2021, a difference of 28,190 people.

Income, employment, education, housing, foster care and incarceration are key areas in which Indigenous Peoples face systemic barriers and inequalities. Continued measurement of these gaps is crucial to inform policies and programs that aim to improve socio-economic conditions and reduce disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, preserving Indigenous languages and promoting language revitalization initiatives can help foster appreciation for Indigenous cultures and maintain this vital component of Canada's linguistic and cultural landscape. Addressing socio-economic disparities and preserving Indigenous languages are essential components of reconciliation. These efforts contribute to the establishment of a more equitable and just society for all Canadians, promoting greater understanding and respect between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples.

Introduction

Each year, Indigenous Services Canada provides a report on:

1. the socio-economic gaps between First Nations, Inuit, Métis and other Canadians and the measures taken by the Department to reduce those gaps; and

2. the progress made towards the transfer of departmental responsibilities to Indigenous organizations as part of its obligations under the Department of Indigenous Services Act. The 2020 report provided a detailed overview of the demographic and socio-economic trends reported on through Statistics Canada's Census of Population.

This compendium report provides an update to the 2020 report using data from the 2021 census cycle. It provides a broad overview of the socio-economic gaps between First Nations, Inuit and Métis and the non-Indigenous population in Canada. It covers a wide range of social and economic variables, ranging from income and education to housing and language use. It highlights not only the gaps that exist today, but also the evolution of those gaps over time.

Method

A note on terminology

At the outset, we wish to acknowledge that some terms in this document may be offensive and problematic for certain individuals who will read this report. While the language that is used in Canada to describe and speak about Indigenous Peoples is evolving to be more respectful and reflective of how Indigenous Peoples and communities themselves choose to be identified, some pieces of legislation continue to use outdated and colonial terminology.

For example, Canada's Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes three distinct "aboriginal peoples of Canada", namely, "Indian, Inuit and Métis". The Government of Canada now uses the terms "Indigenous" and "First Nations". However, "Aboriginal" and "Indian" remain the legal terms that continue to be used in certain circumstances.

Also, as the Indian Act (PDF), a very outdated and colonial piece of legislation, continues to be in effect, terms such as "registered Indian" (also referred to as "status Indian") remain in use. As these remain accepted legal terms, for the purposes of this report, which requires reference to the Indian Act and its provisions and requires precision in terminology for statistical purposes, the legal terms will be used.

Indigenous Peoples is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. More than 1.8 million people in Canada (5.0% of the population of Canada) self-identified as an Indigenous person on Canada's 2021 Census of Population. Indigenous Peoples are the fastest growing population in Canada. Between 2016 and 2021, the Indigenous population grew by 8.0%, while the non-Indigenous population grew by 5.4%. The Indigenous population is also the youngest in Canada: in 2021, 41.2% of Indigenous people were under the age of 25, compared to 27.3% of the non-Indigenous population.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of Indigenous populations across Canada. The figure includes the number of Indigenous individuals living in each province and territory, as well as the proportion of Indigenous Peoples in its overall population. Indigenous Peoples make up the largest proportion of the population in Nunavut (85.8%), the Northwest Territories (49.6%) and the Yukon Territory (22.3%), followed by Manitoba (18.1%) and Saskatchewan (17.0%).

The associated table indicates which proportion of the overall Indigenous population resides in each province and territory. Although Indigenous people comprise only 2.9% of Ontario's population, the province is home to the largest population of Indigenous people, with 406,585 individuals or 22.5% of the Indigenous population in Canada, followed by 16.1 and 15.7% in British Columbia and Alberta, respectively.

The Canadian Constitution recognizes three groups of Indigenous Peoples: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. These are three distinct peoples with unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs. Figure 2 shows how the composition of Indigenous populations varies across the provinces and territories. This figure also includes "Other Indigenous" which is comprised of those with multiple Indigenous identities and those who identify as a band member only.

Figure 1: Distribution and number of Indigenous people in Canada by province and territory, 2021

Text alternative for Figure 1: Distribution and number of Indigenous people in Canada by province and territory, 2021

Population size

Percentage of Region Population

Percentage of Indigenous Population

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: "Other Indigenous" comprises those with multiple Indigenous identities and those who identify as a band member only.

Composition of the Indigenous population in Canada, 2021

First Nations

The term "First Nations" includes Registered Indians (also called Status Indians) and Non-Status Indians. Registered Indians are individuals registered as Indians under the Indian Act.

According to the Census, there were 831,720 Registered Indians in Canada in 2021, comprising 46.0% of the Indigenous population. According to the Indian Register, which is an administrative list of all Registered Indians that is maintained by Indigenous Services Canada, there were 1,040,319 Registered Indians as of December 31, 2021.

Indigenous Services Canada officially recognizes 619 First Nations in Canada, which represent more than 50 Nations and 50 Indigenous languages.

Some First Nations reside on reserve. A reserve is a parcel of land for which legal title is held by the Crown (Government of Canada), for the use and benefit of a particular First Nation. There are 3,406 reserves in Canada.

According to the 2021 Census of Canada, about 37.5% of Registered Indians live on reserve and 62.5% live off reserve. Overall, 48.0% of Registered Indians live in urban areas.

Of the 883 populated census subdivisions associated with First Nations communities in the 2021 Census, 635 or 71.9% have less than 500 inhabitants while only 39 or 4.4% have more than 2,000 inhabitants.

Non-Status Indians account for 16.3% of the total Indigenous population and live almost exclusively off reserve (97.4%). Overall, 75.0% live in urban areas.

Inuit

Inuit are Indigenous people of the Arctic. The word Inuit means "the people" in the Inuit language of Inuktitut. The singular of Inuit is Inuk.

According to the Census, Canada's self-identified Inuit population was 69,705 in 2021, comprising 0.2% of the national population and 3.9% of the Indigenous population. The majority (69.7%) live in Inuit Nunangat, which means "homeland", and 44.3% in Nunavut in particular.

Inuit Nunangat comprises 51 communities across four regions: Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories and Yukon), Nunavut, Nunavik (northern Quebec), and Nunatsiavut (Labrador).

In the 2021 Census, just over four-fifths (81.2%) of Inuit in Canada reported that they were enrolled under or were a beneficiary of an Inuit land claims agreement. Of Inuit who were enrolled under or were a beneficiary of an Inuit land claim agreement:

32,620 (57.6%) came under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement;

13,235 (23.4%) came under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement;

5,920 (10.5%) came under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement; and

4,860 (8.6%) came under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.

Most Inuit who are not enrolled under or are not a beneficiary of a land claim agreement (13,080) live outside Inuit Nunangat (86.4%).

Métis

Of the 624,220 Canadians who self-identified as Métis in the 2021 Census, 224,655 (36.0%) reported membership in a Métis organization or Settlement. Four-fifths (79.8%) reported being a member of one of the five signatories to the Canada-Métis Nation Accord.

In 2021, the Métis Nation of Alberta had the largest membership reported among Métis organizations, at 45,350, followed closely by the Manitoba Métis Federation, at 43,920, and then by the Métis Nation of Ontario (36,240), Métis Nation British Columbia (27,140) and Métis Nation-Saskatchewan (26,700).

3,540 people reported being a member of one of the eight Métis Settlements of Alberta.

Measuring the socio-economic gaps

Why measurement is important

First, continued measurement helps determine whether progress is being achieved over time. Second, ongoing measurement can help demonstrate whether existing programs and policies are properly designed and resourced, and whether there are program and policy gaps that must be addressed. Third, by tracking program and policy performance and identifying gaps, measurement can help ensure accountability of those who design and implement programs and policies. Finally, measurement calls for reflection to clearly and transparently define what progress means. By stimulating conversation and inviting challenge, the iterative process of defining how to measure progress focuses attention on the things that truly matter.

What is important to measure

The socio-economic dimensions addressed in this report were originally selected and analyzed as part of the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament based on a review of the various socio-economic wellness frameworks being used around the world. This compendium report provides an update on these measures to determine the progress that has been made towards narrowing the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada.

Examining gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations helps contextualize the extent of the differences between groups. Without a basis for comparison, raw statistics are difficult to interpret. It is sometimes suggested that focusing on gaps between different populations is inappropriate as it may involve an implicit value judgment. It suggests that the lower-scoring population should aspire to the level of the higher-scoring population on a particular indicator, even if the indicator is of little importance to the lower-scoring population. This is a fair critique and is why the current report focuses on key socio-economic indicators that appear regularly in Indigenous wellness frameworks and that are recognized internationally as important to quality of life in most cultural contexts.

The indicators

The complete set of indicators addressed in this report includes the following.

Domain

Indicator

Data Source

Poverty
Percentage of the population that lived in a low-income situation in the year preceding the Census

Census of Population, Canada, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021

Median employment income
Median employment income received by the working-age population in the year prior to the Census

Census of Population, Canada, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021

University completion
Percentage of the working-age population with a university degree

Census of Population, Canada, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021

State of repair
Percentage of dwellings in need of major repair

Census of Population, Canada, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021

The 2020 Annual Report to Parliament also included a health domain with a number of indicators linked to vital statistics such as life expectancy and infant mortality. Although new publications on these critical indicators are in development, no new data had been published on these indicators as of the time this report was drafted. Therefore, the health domain and its indicators will be omitted from this iteration of the report and will be reported in a future version once the data are available.

Limitations of the data

Data for the first six sets of indicators (from income to housing) are taken from the Census of Population that is conducted every five years and enumerates private dwellings and the people who reside within them. This robust source of socio-economic information remains the cornerstone of data because of its unparalleled ability to support distinctions-based, cross-time analyses for all of Canada, including reserves and the territories.

Despite its richness, the Census has some important limitations. For example, Indigenous people are classified in the Census as Indigenous (or not) based on self-identification, which can be imperfect given variations in how respondents interpret or understand the Indigenous identity questions, as well as their individual choices respecting whether and how to self-identify as an Indigenous person.

Each of the Indigenous identities is determined through a combination of census questions and is subject to interpretation. For example, Statistics Canada looks only at question 24: "Is this person First Nations, Métis or Inuk (Inuit)?" As Indigenous Services Canada is responsible for maintaining the Indian Register, there is a greater emphasis on the importance of identifying Registered versus Non-Status Indians. Indigenous Services Canada considers an individual's response to question 26: "Is this person a Status Indian (Registered or Treaty Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada)?" before question 24 (identity). This seemingly small difference can lead to differences in how the Indigenous identity groups are reported.

Another important limitation is that the Census of Population includes a relatively narrow range of socio-economic indicators and does not capture the various other dimensions of well-being that are important from an Indigenous perspective. For example, the National Outcome-Based Framework includes indicators on governance, the environment, participation in cultural activities, relationship to the land and systemic racism. It also counts only those residing in private dwellings, which leads to an undercount as it inherently excludes those who reside in institutions, who are transient or who are experiencing homelessness.

The 2021 Census was further complicated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which profoundly impacted the way data were collected for this census cycle. The 2021 Census was launched on May 11, 2021. In order to mitigate the circumstances created by the pandemic and prevent further spread of COVID-19 in First Nations and Inuit communities, Statistics Canada implemented a data collection approach that differed from previous censuses. To minimize face-to-face interactions, the 2021 Census data collection initially prioritized self-enumeration (paper questionnaires, online) rather than in-person interviews with an enumerator. In addition to the constraints caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the uncovering of burial sites at former residential schools as well as the forest fires in northern Ontario and the western provinces further impacted participation by Indigenous communities and their residents. In order to mitigate the impact of low participation in the 2021 Census, Statistics Canada revised its data collection strategy in July 2021 and sent travel teams of enumerators to various regions across Canada. Engagement efforts were bolstered through an expanded Indigenous Liaison Program at Statistics Canada, and efforts were made to hire census staff locally within communities.

All data collection activities for the 2021 Census ceased on September 24, 2021. Despite all efforts by Statistics Canada, a total of 63 census subdivisions defined as reserves and settlements were incompletely enumerated. Previously, the number of incompletely enumerated reserves had declined; for example, it was 30 in 2001, 22 in 2006, 36 in 2011 and 14 in 2016. In 2021, the estimated census response rate in Indigenous and northern communities was 85.6%. Comparatively, the overall census response rate was 98% in 2021, and the response rate in Indigenous communities was 92% in 2016.

Given the larger number of First Nations communities that were incompletely enumerated in 2021, Statistics Canada has urged caution when comparing variables that are strongly tied to First Nations reserves. For example, Indigenous language knowledge is typically substantially higher among those residing on a reserve. As some of those responses were not captured during this census data collection cycle, there is an increased risk of potentially erroneous or confounding conclusions. Any potential drop in Indigenous language knowledge may stem from a real drop in the number of Indigenous language speakers or from the fact that fewer Indigenous language speakers were counted this census and are missing from the overall findings.

As we move beyond the census to seek other sources of data on justice, the persistent gaps in data on Indigenous populations become more evident as data are limited to a pan-Indigenous identifier. Where such limitations exist, the best data available are used to illustrate the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.

The analysis

To the extent possible, this analysis is distinctions-based. Data are presented for the three main distinctions groups: First Nations, Inuit and Métis. First Nations data are further disaggregated, given the significant differences in socio-economic outcomes that are known to exist among the following groups: Registered Indians living on reserve, Registered Indians living off reserve and Non-Status Indians. Where possible, data for the past 20 years have been included to illustrate how socio-economic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations have evolved.

Regional analyses are also provided. Notably, some very small populations of First Nations and Métis in the territories are also the populations experiencing the largest gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population. Because statistics based on very small populations are less reliable and can create a skewed image of overall trends, one option would be to exclude them from broader analyses and/or discuss them separately. In the interest of transparency, however, it was decided to retain these small populations as part of the general analysis. Readers are encouraged to interpret statistics for small populations with caution, especially when data are further broken down by gender, age or other variables.

For the first time in census history, 2021 marks the shift to reporting on gender rather than biological sex. A new question on gender was included in the 2021 Census to reflect a growing social and legislative recognition of transgender and non-binary people. Gender identity refers to a person's internal and individual experience with gender. It may not be visible to others and it may not align with socially constructed gender norms. A person may refer to their gender identity in a multitude of ways including Woman, Man, Non-binary, Two-Spirit, Pangender, Agender, Gender Queer, Gender Fluid, Transgender or Cisgender.

The 2021 Census is the first census to provide data on transgender people and non-binary people. Census 2021 allowed individuals to write in responses other than male or female for the gender question. All these responses were condensed into a single non-binary gender for reporting purposes. Even with this amalgamation, the number of non-binary people is still quite small. Given this, Statistics Canada further aggregates data into a two-category gender variable when necessary to protect the confidentiality of responses provided. In these cases, individuals in the category "non-binary persons" are distributed in the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "＋" symbol. "Men＋" includes men (and/or boys), as well as half of non-binary persons. "Women＋" includes women (and/or girls), as well as half of non-binary persons. Detailed analyses by gender are provided where feasible.

Measuring the gap

A number of different approaches can be taken to assess the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. For instance, the difference between groups (e.g., there was a difference of X % or Y dollars between group A and B) can be used to get a sense of where the gaps exist. However, limiting analysis to look only at the differences between groups can hinder the comparability between groups and indicators over time. Another choice is to examine the relative variation. The % change in gaps can be calculated, allowing for the relative size of the changes to be compared.

In this report, the gap between the total Indigenous population (or Indigenous group) and the non-Indigenous population is provided for each indicator. The gap is reported as the difference between the two populations. An analysis of the % change in the gap from 2016 to 2021 is also presented and discussed where feasible.

A common approach to interpreting % change is to use Cohen's d effect size measure as a guide. According to Cohen's conventions, a small effect size is typically defined as a Cohen's d of 0.2, a medium effect size as a Cohen's d of 0.5, and a large effect size as a Cohen's d of 0.8. Using these conventions, a % change of 5% would be considered a small effect size, a % change of 12.5% would be considered a medium effect size, and a % change of 20% or more would be considered a large effect size.

In the spirit of accessibility and transparency, the goal of this report is to provide a large volume of data to inform partners and stakeholders. For each figure, a brief summary of the more notable findings is presented. The full data tables are available in Appendix A and readers are encouraged to engage with the data. To obtain a copy of the data associated with this report or to obtain additional census data related to Indigenous Peoples in Canada, please contact the Indigenous and Northern Statistics Team (INSTAT) at instat@sac-isc.gc.ca.

Findings

Income - Median individual income

Median income is a well-established measure of material well-being. Although it does not capture an individual's assets, median income is one way of estimating a person's wealth. Median individual income refers to a person's total income before tax from all sources including market income (such as employment wages) and government transfers (such as Old Age Security pension and other government benefit programs). In the census, income information is provide through tax records from the previous calendar year. For example, for data collected in the 2021 Census, income from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 is reported. Similarly, for Census 2016, income data is based on 2015.

Median individual income includes government benefits, which is of particular importance for 2020. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of new government benefits were offered such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). Statistics Canada has analyzed these most recent census data and concluded that "the decrease [in poverty rates] was mostly driven by increased government transfers and temporary pandemic-related benefits."

For a full list of all data tables relevant to median income, please see Appendix A, tables A1.1 to A1.6.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2006 to 2021 Census of Population.

Note: The dollar values have been adjusted for inflation and are stated in terms of their value in 2020.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Given that the non-binary population is small, Statistics Canada implemented a method producing a two-category gender variable to prevent disclosure of identifiable data for lower levels of geography. Consequently, information will be disseminated using the following categories: Men+, Women+. Individuals in the "non-binary persons" category are distributed in the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "+" symbol.

Measuring the gap

Overall, in all cases, the gaps between the Indigenous group and the non-Indigenous population shrunk between 2015 and 2020.

There was a large narrowing of the gap in individual median income for all Indigenous groups compared to the non-Indigenous population, with the largest change occurring among Métis, at 30.4%.

Generally, Indigenous women+ had substantially greater gains than Indigenous men+ in terms of closing the gap with their non-Indigenous counterparts.

For Indigenous men+, the gaps in median individual income relative to the non-Indigenous population remained relatively stable between 2015 and 2020, with the exception of Métis for whom the gap more than doubled (220.0%) from $500 in 2015 to $1,600 in 2020.

All Indigenous women+ saw a large narrowing of the gap between 2015 and 2020, particularly Inuit women+ for whom the gap with their non-Indigenous counterparts closed entirely (-100.0%).

It is important to acknowledge that the general narrowing of the gaps may stem from the increased availability of government benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A1.6.

Employment income

The median employment income measure complements employment rates, as it is a common way to assess the quality of jobs held by the employed population. For a full list of all data tables relevant to employment income, please see Appendix A, tables A4.1 to A4.6.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2006 to 2021 Census of Population.

Note: The dollar values have been adjusted for inflation and are stated in terms of their value in 2020.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Given that the non-binary population is small, Statistics Canada produced a two-category gender variable that was applied to prevent disclosure of identifiable data for lower levels of geography when necessary. Consequently, information will be disseminated using the following categories: Men+, Women+. Individuals in the "non-binary persons" category are distributed in the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "+" symbol.

Measuring the gaps

After adjusting for inflation from 2015 to 2020, the comparison shows that all Indigenous groups saw an increase in employment income in terms of the amount earned; however, the gaps between each Indigenous group and the non-Indigenous population showed more variability.

There was a large narrowing of the gap in employment income for Inuit, from $10,800 in 2015 to $8,000 in 2020.

There was a medium narrowing of the gap for Registered Indians living on reserve (13.3%), while the gap in employment income remained relatively stable for Registered Indians living off reserve.

There was a widening of the gap for Non-Status Indians and Métis. Both groups saw a small increase in dollar value between 2015 and 2020, of only $900 and $800 respectively.

In general, Indigenous women+ saw greater narrowing of gaps in median employment income than Indigenous men+, although the results are somewhat mixed.

Among Inuit men+, there was a small narrowing of the gap in median employment income compared to the non-Indigenous population, at 13.8%.

For Métis men+, the median employment income was above that of the non-Indigenous population in 2015; the opposite was true in 2020, leading to the seemingly large change in the gap (366.7%), but in reality the change was actually very small.

There was a medium widening of gaps for Registered Indian men+ off reserve and Non-Status Indian men+, at 22.0 and 23.1%, respectively.

Registered Indian women+ off reserve saw a medium narrowing of the gap (14.8%), while Registered Indian women+ living on reserve and Inuit women+ experienced a large narrowing of gaps at 21.0 and 44.0%, respectively.

Like Métis men+, Métis women+ also saw a widening of the gap, at 33.3%.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A4.6.

Education - having at least a high school credential

In addition to being a baseline requirement for many careers, completion of a formal education at the high school level or above has the benefit of ensuring that individuals have the literacy, numeracy and other skills they need to participate fully in Canada's economy and in civil society, and to effectively access the services and benefits to which they are entitled. As with most measures, high school completion can be assessed in a number of ways. The census measures the highest level of education each person has achieved. All individuals who have a high school diploma or equivalency degree or who have engaged in any form of post-secondary education (e.g., university, college or trade school) are considered to have at least a high school credential. As seen in Table 11, there were 80,280 more Indigenous people with a high school education in 2021 than in 2016. For a full list of all data tables relevant to high school completion, please see Appendix A, tables A5.1 to A5.7.

Changes in a population's education levels tend to start with youth. As the availability of and need for formal education expands, young people strive to obtain the credentials they need to achieve their career goals. Although older adults can and do obtain additional educational credentials, most people complete their formal education when they are relatively young. Looking at the educational attainment of younger cohorts can therefore provide some insight into how the overall gap in education can be expected to change in the future. Simply put, if the gaps are smaller among younger cohorts (under 25 years of age), the overall gaps are in the process of narrowing.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Figure 28: Gap in high school completion (in percentage points) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35+ and 25 to 64, 2021, Canada

Text alternative for Figure 28: Gap in high school completion (in percentage points) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, aged 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35+ and 25 to 64, 2021, Canada

-36.8

-35.0

-27.3

-30.8

-16.1

-14.2

-11.0

-12.6

-12.2

-9.8

-6.3

-8.0

-39.6

-37.8

-31.7

-34.7

-6.3

-5.2

-4.8

-5.2

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Regional variation in high school attainment is modest among Métis, and the gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population range from close to zero in the four Atlantic Provinces to 14.4 percentage points in the Northwest Territories.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A5.5.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Given that the non-binary population is small, Statistics Canada produced a two-category gender variable that was applied to prevent disclosure of identifiable data for lower levels of geography when necessary. Consequently, information will be disseminated using the following categories: Men+, Women+. Individuals in the "non-binary persons" category are distributed in the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "+" symbol.

Measuring the gaps

There was an increase in the overall percentage of people with at least a high school credential; however, the gap did not close for all Indigenous groups compared to the non-Indigenous population.

There was a small narrowing of the gap for Registered Indians living off reserve (12.0%) and for Non-Status Indians (10.1%).

There was a large narrowing of the gap for Métis (24.6%).

The gaps for Registered Indians living on reserve and Inuit were relatively stable from 2016 to 2021.

There was a small narrowing of the gap in high school completion rates for Registered Indian men+ living off reserve (7.2%) and Non-Status Indian men+ (7.4%). Métis men+ saw a medium narrowing of the gap (19.8%), from 8.6% in 2016 to 6.9% in 2021.

There was a small widening of the gap for Inuit men+, from 32.9% in 2016 to 36.6% in 2021.

Between Indigenous women+ and non-Indigenous women+, there was a narrowing of gaps in the percentage of people with a high school education across all groups except Inuit women+ for whom the gap remained relatively stable.

Métis women+ saw the largest narrowing of the gap at 28.3%, from 5.3% in 2016 to 3.7% in 2021.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A5.7.

Children in foster care

The Census of Population is designed to enumerate private households. Therefore, with respect to children in foster care, the census counts only those who reside in a private home. Those living in institutions, group homes or other care arrangements are not included in census counts related to children in foster care and are therefore not reflected in the data presented in this report.

Indigenous children are far more likely than non-Indigenous children to be in foster care. Although Indigenous Peoples represent only 5.0% of the Canadian population, Indigenous children make up over half (52.0%) of the children in foster care (Figure 51). From 2016 to 2021, the number of Indigenous children in foster care was relatively flat, decreasing by only 90 children in 5 years (Table 21). For a full list of all data tables relevant to children in foster care, please see Appendix A, tables A9.1 to A9.4.

The regional breakdowns for Inuit are not presented as the small numbers make it difficult to interpret differences in the percentage of Inuit children in foster care across Inuit regions. It is notable that the percentage of Inuit children in foster care inside Inuit Nunangat (2.0%) is lower than the percentage outside Inuit Nunangat (8.0%). However, this pattern could be misleading as some Inuit children in foster care outside Inuit Nunangat may originate from families inside Inuit Nunangat.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Indigenous children are over-represented in foster care. Of all children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 26.3% were Registered Indian children living off reserve, 9.2% were Non-Status Indian children, 7.6% were Registered Indian children living on reserve, 5.8% were Métis children and 2.6% were Inuit children.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Figure 52 includes a statistic for all Registered Indian children, in addition to the breakdown between those on and off reserve. In subsequent charts related to foster care, the breakdown is not included as it may be misleading, since Registered Indian children in foster care off reserve may come from families living on reserve.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Registered Indian includes both those living on and off reserve since Registered Indian children in foster care off reserve may come from families living on reserve.

Figure 54: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Text alternative for Figure 54: Percentage of children aged 0 to 17 in foster care, 2021, First Nations and non-Indigenous populations, by region

Registered Indians

Non-Status Indian

Non-Indigenous

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Registered Indians include both those living on and off reserve since Registered Indian children in foster care off reserve may come from families living on reserve.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

The percentage of Métis children in foster care differed markedly across regions, peaking in Manitoba at 2.6%.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A9.4.

Measuring the gaps

Indigenous children in Canada continue to be overrepresented in foster care.

The proportion of Indigenous children in foster care in 2021 remained relatively stable compared to 2016 with the exception of Inuit children.

Indigenous language knowledge

Indigenous languages have a very important role in Indigenous cultures and reflect the rich and distinct worldviews of the different Indigenous nations across the country. In 2021, there were over 70 Indigenous languages spoken in Canada. For more than 20 (28.6%) of those languages, 500 or fewer people reported speaking them as their mother tongue. In 2021, 243,155 individuals could conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, 188,905 people reported having at least one Indigenous mother tongue and 182,925 reported speaking an Indigenous language at home on a regular basis. From 2016 to 2021, the number of individuals able to conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language dropped by over 20,000 (Table 23). This may be due in part to the 63 incompletely enumerated First Nations communities for the 2021 Census. For a full list of all data tables relevant to Indigenous language knowledge, please see Appendix A, tables A10.1 to A10.8.

Knowledge of Indigenous languages is not compared to non-Indigenous languages in this report. Instead, the report examines trends in Indigenous language use over time and whether those trends reflect Indigenous Peoples' aspirations with respect to the preservation and practice of their ancestral languages.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

In 2021, knowledge of an Indigenous language, meaning the proportion of Indigenous people who can conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, was highest among Inuit (58.5%) and Registered Indians living on reserve (40.4%), and lowest among Métis (1.2%) and Non-Status Indians (1.8%).

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A10.1.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Figure 58: Percentage of First Nations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by region

Text alternative for Figure 58: Percentage of First Nations with knowledge of an Indigenous language, 2021, by region

Registered Indian on reserve

Registered Indian off reserve

Non-Status Indian

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Note: Given that the non-binary population is small, Statistics Canada produced a two-category gender variable that was applied to prevent disclosure of identifiable data for lower levels of geography when necessary. Consequently, information will be disseminated using the following categories: Men+, Women+. Individuals in the "non-binary persons" category are distributed in the other two gender categories and are denoted by the "+" symbol.

The likelihood of knowing an Indigenous language was similar for men+ and women+ across all Indigenous populations.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Table A10.6

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Justice - Incarceration

Disproportionate levels of incarceration can be a strong indicator that a holistic examination is needed of both crime and the institutional responses to it. The Adult Correctional Services Survey collects annual data on the delivery of adult correctional services from both the provincial/territorial and federal correctional systems. Reporting on custody admissions is limited to a pan-Indigenous identifier. In 2021, 46,633 Indigenous people were admitted to remand, custody or community sentence. From 2016 to 2021, the total number of Indigenous adult admissions decreased considerably from 74,823 to 46,633, a difference of 28,190 people (Table 24). For a full list of all data tables relevant to incarceration, please see Appendix A, tables A11.1 to A11.2.

Indigenous

Non-Indigenous

Indigenous identity unknown

Number

Percentage change from previous year

Number

Percentage change from previous year

Number

Percentage change from previous year

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population and 2021 to 2022 Adult Correctional Services Survey.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2016 to 2017 to 2021 to 2022 Adult Correctional Services Survey.

A focus on urban settings

According to the 2021 Census, about 48.0% of Registered Indians, 75.0% of Non-Status Indians, 50.7% of Inuit, and 71.1% of Métis live in urban areas. Analyses of these data revealed that gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations living in urban settings are generally similar to those that exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations overall. Employment rates provide a useful illustration.

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2021 Census of Population.

Urban employment rates were almost identical to total employment rates both in the overall trends and relative to each other.

In urban settings, the highest employment rate was among Métis (69.5%) and the lowest among Registered Indians living off reserve (58.1%).

Urban employment rates and corresponding gaps relative to the non-Indigenous population were relatively stable for Registered Indians off reserve, Non-Status Indians and Métis when compared to overall employment trends and disparities (both in urban settings and throughout Canada).

Among Inuit, the urban employment rate was higher than the total employment rate (59.1% compared to 55.2%).

Accordingly, the gap in employment rate among Inuit living in urban areas relative to their non-Indigenous counterparts compared to the gap among Inuit in total was slightly smaller, at 20.5 percentage points.

The full dataset for this figure is available in Appendix A - Tables 12.1 and 12.2.

Measuring the gaps

The gap in employment rate among Indigenous people in urban areas remained relatively stable from 2016 to 2021 for Registered Indians off reserve, Non-Status Indians and Métis.

Among Inuit, he the gap in employment rate narrowed by 7.3%, from 16.4% in 2016 to 15.2% in 2021.

Conclusions

Indigenous Peoples in Canada face significant and long-standing socio-economic gaps when compared to non-Indigenous people. These gaps have been shaped by a long history of colonialism, discrimination and marginalization, which have profoundly impacted Indigenous communities and continue to affect their lives today. This report focuses on the gaps for which the Census of Population can be used to assess the scale and scope of changes over time. The Department's 2020 Report to Parliament established baseline measures for many of these indicators and quantified the gaps between the socio-economic well-being of Indigenous Peoples and their non-Indigenous counterparts. In summary, Indigenous Peoples in Canada were found to experience significant disparities in well-being compared to non-Indigenous Canadians. Indigenous Peoples in Canada have lower median incomes and are more likely to live in poverty. They also experience significant employment disparities compared to non-Indigenous Canadians, as the unemployment rate among Indigenous people is generally higher. Indigenous Peoples in Canada experience lower levels of educational attainment compared to non-Indigenous Canadians, including lower rates of high school graduation and university education. They are more likely than non-Indigenous Canadians to experience inadequate housing conditions. In the criminal justice system, Indigenous Peoples are overrepresented in incarceration rates. Indigenous children in Canada are also vastly overrepresented in the child welfare system, accounting for a disproportionate number of children in foster care.

As seen throughout this report, progress has been made towards closing these gaps, but at times the extent of progress can be difficult to assess. Given that a 5.0-percent change would be considered a small effect size, a 12.5-percent change would be considered a medium effect size and a 20-percent change or more would be considered a large effect size, it is possible to examine all domains to determine the direction and size of the relative change in socio-economic gaps between Indigenous Peoples in Canada and the non-Indigenous population (Table 26). For a full summary of each domain, see Appendix B.

From 2015 to 2020, median individual income increased across the board. Even after accounting for inflation, income was higher for all Indigenous identities and increased at a higher rate than that of the non-Indigenous population. A large narrowing of the gap was observed for each Indigenous group, with increases ranging from $4,500 to $9,900 since 2015. Increased income meant fewer households in a low-income situation. Again, a large narrowing of the gap was observed between each Indigenous group and the non-Indigenous population. The narrowing of gaps ranged from 31.8% for Inuit to 46.5% for Non-Status Indians. The total number of Indigenous people living in a low-income situation dropped from 471,560 in 2015 to 335,560 in 2020. Overall, 136,000 fewer Indigenous people (60,190 Registered Indians living on reserve, 45,030 Registered Indians living off reserve, 8,975 Non-Status Indians, 2,840 Inuit and 18,965 Métis) were living in a low-income situation since 2015.

Registered Indian on reserve

Registered Indian off reserve

Non-Status Indian

Inuit

Métis

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2016 to 2021 Census of Population.

Since 2016, there have been slight improvements in the gaps in employment rate relative to the non-Indigenous population for Registered Indians living on reserve, Non-Status Indians and Métis. Even though the gaps remained stable for Registered Indians living off reserve and Inuit, the 2021 findings are noteworthy. Given the employment challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic such as lockdowns, business closures and changes in consumer habits, the fact that Indigenous people remained employed at proportionate levels to their non-Indigenous peers is an important finding. In 2016, 502,925 Indigenous people were employed, and that number rose to 538,415 in 2021; an additional 35,490 Indigenous people were working in 2021 with increases across all Indigenous groups (10,020 Registered Indians living off reserve, 16,725 Non-Status Indians, 1,040 Inuit and 10,060 Métis) with the exception of Registered Indians living on reserve, who saw a decline of 2,355 employed people. The gaps in employment income were more varied, as the gap narrowed for some groups (Registered Indians living on reserve and Inuit), one group saw no change (Registered Indians living off reserve) and for others, the gap widened (Non-Status Indians and Métis). Despite these differences, employment income was higher in 2020 for all Indigenous groups, even after accounting for inflation, with individuals bringing home an additional $800 to $4,200 per year in income. Census 2026 will be important to determine how the increased availability of government benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted income and employment. Census 2026 will be crucial in helping contextualize the historic implications of the pandemic on the socio-economic well-being of all Canadians.

In total, 80,280 more Indigenous people aged 25 to 64 had a high school education in 2021 than in 2016 (925 Registered Indians living on reserve, 26,150 Registered Indians living off reserve, 25,545 Non-Status Indians, 1,730 Inuit and 25,930 Métis). For Registered Indians living off reserve, Non-Status Indians and Métis, the gaps in the proportion of those 25 to 64 years of age with at least a high school education compared to the non-Indigenous population narrowed, ranging from 10.1 to 24.6%. From 2016 to 2021, an additional 47,980 Indigenous people (4,985 Registered Indians living on reserve, 14,630 Registered Indians living off reserve, 9,200 Non-Status Indians, 890 Inuit and 18,275 Métis) obtained a university education. Despite these gains, the gaps in university completion relative to the non-Indigenous population widened for all Indigenous groups, from 15.9 to 22.9%. Education is the key to breaking the cycle of poverty. By improving education outcomes among Indigenous people, we can equip individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the modern economy. This can help Indigenous people secure higher-paying jobs and improve their overall economic well-being. Education is a powerful tool for promoting social inclusion and cultural revitalization. Indigenous education can help preserve and revitalize traditional cultures and languages, which are important components of Indigenous identity. This can foster a sense of belonging and pride in Indigenous communities, which can lead to improved mental health and social cohesion. Improving Indigenous education can also help address the historical injustices and traumas experienced by Indigenous Peoples.

Generally speaking, housing quality and conditions improved for Indigenous people from 2016 to 2021. The gaps in both the proportion of dwellings that were crowded and the proportion of dwellings in need of major repair generally narrowed between census cycles. However, the narrowing of the gap in the proportion of crowded dwellings was due in part to increases in crowded dwellings among the non-Indigenous population. The greatest decline in the number of crowded dwellings was found among Registered Indians living on reserve, from 12,160 crowded dwellings in 2016 to 10,705 in 2021, a difference of 1,455. From 2016 to 2021, although the non-Indigenous dwellings in need of major repair increased by 2,525, the number of Indigenous dwellings in need of major repair dropped by 3,715. This decline was driven by 6,005 fewer dwellings of Registered Indians living on reserve and 485 fewer dwellings of Registered Indians living off reserve requiring major repair.

Indigenous children continue to be overrepresented in foster care. The census data collection method identifies only children in foster care who reside in a private home. It excludes those in institutions, group homes or other care arrangements. The proportions of Registered Indian, Non-Status Indian and Métis children in foster care were actually fairly stable over the period. The proportion of Inuit children in foster care increased by almost 1.0%. In total, there were 17,410 Indigenous children in foster care in 2016 compared to 17,320 in 2021.

In addition to socio-economic gaps, declines in Indigenous language knowledge are noteworthy. In 2021, 243,155 individuals could conduct a conversation in an Indigenous language, 188,905 people reported having at least one Indigenous mother tongue and 182,925 reported speaking an Indigenous language at home at least on a regular basis. In 2021, there were over 70 Indigenous languages spoken in Canada. For more than 20 (28.6%) of those languages, 500 or fewer people reported speaking them as their mother tongue. Indigenous languages are a vital part of the country's cultural and linguistic diversity and are essential to Indigenous Peoples' identity, culture and well-being. Many of the Indigenous languages in Canada are endangered, facing the risk of extinction due to the impacts of colonialism, residential schools and ongoing discrimination. The loss of Indigenous languages has significant impacts on Indigenous Peoples' well-being, cultural identity and sense of belonging. Language loss also results in the loss of traditional knowledge and cultural practices.

Indigenous Peoples in Canada continue to be overrepresented in the criminal justice system, as both victims and offenders. From 2016 to 2021, the percentage of Indigenous adults who entered a correctional facility for remand or who were sentenced to custody or a community supervision program increased slightly from 29.9% to 31.2%. However, the total number of these admissions decreased considerably during this same period, from 74,823 in 2016 to 46,633 in 2021, a difference of 28,190 people.

Addressing socio-economic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in areas such as income, employment, education, housing, foster care and incarceration is crucial for reconciliation. These gaps are a result of systemic barriers and inequalities that have led to the marginalization of Indigenous Peoples.

Addressing these socio-economic gaps requires a holistic approach that takes into account not only economic factors but also social, cultural and spiritual factors. This includes supporting language and cultural revitalization, improving access to education and promoting community empowerment. Further narrowing the disparities between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations will require additional commitments to address historical and ongoing injustices, support Indigenous self-determination and incorporate Indigenous knowledge and perspectives into policy and program development. Indigenous-led solutions and approaches are necessary to address the socio-economic gaps experienced by Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Table B1. Overview of the change in gap observed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations from 2016 to 2021 for all domain indicators, Canada

Source: Indigenous Services Canada. Custom Tabulations, 2016 to 2021 Census of Population.

Notes:

A % change of 5.0% would be considered a small effect size, a % change of 12.5% would be considered a medium effect size and a % change of 20.0% or more would be considered a large effect size.

The on/off reserve breakdown is not included for children in foster care as it may be misleading, since Registered Indian children in foster care off reserve may come from families living on reserve.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

In the census, income is reported for the previous calendar year. For the 2021 census, income data were based on total earnings in 2020.
Return to footnote 1 referrer

Thank you for your feedback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An update on the socio-economic gaps between Indigenous Peoples and the non-Indigenous population in Canada: Highlights from the 2021 Census

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Compendium Report to the Department's 2023 Annual Report to Parliament.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding the Overrepresentation of Indigenous People - State of the Criminal Justice System Dashboard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Web Experience Toolkit (WET) includes reusable components for building and maintaining innovative Web sites that are accessible, usable, and interoperable. These reusable components are open source software and free for use by departments and external Web communities

# data[].attributes.body
How can Socioeconomic Inequality for Indigenous Peoples be seen at the national level?

# data[].attributes.body
How can Socioeconomic Inequality for Indigenous Peoples be seen at the global level?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indigenous peoples rights are human rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For far too long, the rights of indigenous peoples around the world have been denied and violated.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is it important to address this Socioeconomic Inequality for Indigenous Peoples?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is it important to address this Socioeconomic Inequality for Indigenous Peoples?

# data[].attributes.body
Equity and Justice – Tackling socioeconomic disparities guarantees fairness and recognizes past injustices that have harmed Indigenous communities.

- Enhanced Quality of Life – Decreasing inequality boosts access to education, healthcare, and economic prospects, resulting in improved living standards.

- Cultural Preservation – Economic security enables Indigenous communities to maintain and rejuvenate their languages, customs, and cultural activities.

- Economic Progress – Encouraging Indigenous involvement in the economy benefits society overall by promoting innovation, diversity, and sustainable advancement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Harvey Milk, was a visionary civil and human rights leader who became one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. Milk's unprecedented loud and unapologetic proclamation of his authenticity as an openly gay candidate for public office, and his subsequent election gave never before experienced hope to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) people everywhere at a time when the community was encountering widespread hostility and discrimination. His remarkable career was tragically cut short when he was assassinated nearly a year after taking office.

Harvey was born May 22, 1930, in Woodmere, New York. Harvey and his one sibling, Robert, worked in the family's department store, "Milks"; his Lithuanian born father, William, served in the U.S. Navy and as did his spirited, independent mother Minerva, also of Lithuanian heritage, who was a "Yeomanette" during World War I. Harvey came from a small middle-class Jewish family that had founded a Jewish synagogue and was well known in the New York "Litvaks" community for their civic engagement. He knew he was gay by the time he attended Bayshore high school, where he was a popular student with wide-ranging interests, from opera to playing football.

While in college at New York State College for Teachers (now State University of New York) in Albany, where he studied math and history, Milk penned a popular weekly student newspaper column where he began questioning issues of diversity with a reflection on the lessons learned from the recently ended World War. He graduated in 1951 and enlisted in the Navy. He attended Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island, and subsequently was based in San Diego, where he served as a diving instructor. In 1955, he resigned at the rank of lieutenant junior grade after being officially questioned about his sexual orientation.

Following his time in the Navy, Milk entered the civilian working world in New York, as a public school teacher on Long Island, as a stock analyst in New York City, and as a production associate for Broadway musicals, including Jesus Christ Superstar and Hair. During the 1960s and early 70s, he became more actively involved in politics and advocacy and he demonstrated against the Vietnam War.

Late 1972, Milk moved to San Francisco, where he opened a camera store on Castro Street, in the heart of the city's growing gay community. It quickly became a neighborhood center. Milk's sense of humor and theatricality made him a popular figure. Little more than a year after his arrival in the city, he declared his candidacy for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He lost that race, but emerged from the campaign as a force to be reckoned with in local politics.

After some area merchants tried to prevent two gay men from opening a store, Milk and a few other business owners founded the Castro Village Association, a first in the nation organizing of predominantly LGBT businesses, with Milk as president. He organized the Castro Street Fair in 1974 to attract more customers to area businesses. Its success made the Castro Village Association an effective power base for gay merchants and a blue print for other LGBT communities in the US.

In 1975, he ran again for the combined San Francisco City/County supervisor seat and narrowly lost. By now, he was established as the leading political spokesman for the Castro's vibrant gay community. His close friend and ally Mayor George Moscone, appointed him to the city's Board of Permit Appeals, making Milk the first openly gay city commissioner in the United States.

Milk soon filed candidacy papers for the state assembly, but lost his race to represent the Sixteenth Assembly District. Realizing that he would have a greater chance of political success if he relied on voters in the Castro, he then worked with with his campaign manager, Anne Kronenberg and Mayor Moscone for the passage of an amendment that would replace at-large elections for the Board of Supervisors with district elections. In 1977, he easily won his third bid, and was inaugurated as a San Francisco City-County Supervisor on January 9, 1978. This was an important and symbolic victory for the LGBT community as well as a personal triumph for Milk. His election made national and international headlines.

A commitment to serving a broad constituency, not just LGBT people, helped make Milk an effective and popular supervisor. His ambitious reform agenda included protecting gay rights-he sponsored an important anti-discrimination bill-as well as establishing day care centers for working mothers, the conversion of military facilities in the city to low-cost housing, reform of the tax code to attract industry to deserted warehouses and factories, and other issues. He was a powerful advocate for strong, safe neighborhoods, and pressured the mayor's administration to improve services for the Castro such as library services, and community policing. In addition, he spoke out on state and national issues of interest to LGBT people, women, racial and ethnic minorities and other marginalized communities

One of these was a California ballot initiative, Proposition 6, which would have mandated the firing of gay teachers in the state's public schools. State Senator John Briggs, seeking to marshal anti-gay sentiment and an agenda of hate and diminishment for political gain, spearheaded the initiative. With strong, effective opposition from Milk and others, it was defeated at a time when other political attacks on gay people were being successfully waged around the US.

Attendance swelled at gay pride marches in San Francisco and Los Angeles as Milk and others campaigned against the Briggs Initiative.

In one of his eloquent speeches, Milk spoke of the American ideal of equality, proclaiming, "Gay people, we will not win our rights by staying quietly in our closets. ... We are coming out to fight the lies, the myths, the distortions. We are coming out to tell the truths about gays, for I am tired of the conspiracy of silence, so I'm going to talk about it. And I want you to talk about it. You must come out."

Many other qualities in addition to his eloquence made Milk a successful politician and leader. He pioneered the building of coalitions between diverse groups-women, asians, hispanics, the disabled-and even brought together the teamsters and gay bar owners-in return for a pledge from the teamsters to hire more gay drivers, Milk asked bar owners to stop selling beer from certain distributors while drivers were striking.

On November 27, 1978, a disgruntled former city Supervisor assassinated Milk and Mayor George Moscone. Dan White sneaked into City Hall through a basement window, avoiding the metal detectors at the official entrances, went to Moscone's office, killed him, then walked down the hall to kill Milk. That night, a crowd of thousands spontaneously came together on Castro Street and marched to City Hall in a silent candlelight vigil that has been recognized as one of the most eloquent responses to violence that a community has ever expressed.

Given the hatred directed at gay people in general and Milk in particular-he received daily death threats-he was aware of the likelihood that he may well be assassinated. He recorded several versions of his will, "to be read in the event of my assassination." One of his tapes contained the now-famous statement, "If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door." His nephew, Stuart Milk, a teenager at the time, and close with his uncle, came out, along with countless others across the nation, on the day his uncle was killed. Shortly after Milk's death, people marching for gay rights in Washington, D.C., chanted "Harvey Milk lives!"

Dan White, Milk's assassin, was acquitted of murder charges and given a mild sentence for manslaughter, partly as a result of what became known as the "twinkie defense." His attorney claimed that White had eaten too much junk food on the day of the killings and thus could not be held accountable for his crimes. He was sentenced to less than eight years in prison on May 21, 1979-the day before what would have been Milk's 49th birthday-igniting what came to be known as the White Night Riots. Enraged citizens stormed City Hall and rows of police cars were set on fire. The city suffered property damage and police officers retaliated by raiding the Castro, vandalizing gay businesses and beating people on the street.

The life and career of Harvey Milk have been the subjects of an opera, books, and films. These include the Shilts's biography, The Mayor of Castro Street (1982); the Oscar-winning documentary The Times of Harvey Milk by Robert Epstein(1984); and the Gus Van Sant directed drama Milk (2008). The latter film received eight Academy Award nominations, winning in two categories: Sean Penn was named best actor for his performance in the title role, and Dustin Lance Black won an Oscar for his screenplay.

There are several public schools named after Milk, the Harvey Milk High School in New York City and in his old Castro neighborhood, the elementary school bears his name. In San Francisco, there is a federal building at the US Job Corps Center on Treasure Island named after Milk, as well as a public recreation center, a branch of the public library, and a public plaza. A memorial plaque reads, "His life is an inspiration to all people committed to equal opportunity and an end to bigotry." In 2012, San Diego, California named the street that leads to the doors of that city's LGBT center Harvey Milk Street and the City of Long Beach, California dedicated the Harvey Milk Oceanside Promenade and Park. Abroad, the gay community center in the city of Verona, Italy is named after Milk as is the LGBT center in Anuncion Paraguay. Harvey was included in Time magazine's list of the "100 most important people of the 20th century."

A statue of Milk was unveiled in the center rotunda at San Francisco City Hall in 2008. On August 12, 2009, Harvey's nephew, Stuart Milk accepted the posthumously awarded Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama, who praised Milk's "visionary courage and conviction" in fighting discrimination. Stuart Milk also accepted Harvey's induction into the California Hall of Fame in 2009 from then First Lady Maria Kennedy Shriver. A bill designating Milk's birthday, May 22, as an annual "Harvey Milk Day" was introduced by Senator Mark Leno and championed by Harvey's nephew, Stuart Milk and Equality California - the non-fiscal Milk holiday was passed by the California State Legislature in 2009 and signed into law by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Milk's day is observed with events across the nation and around the globe. In 2014, the White House, the United States Postal Service and the Harvey Milk Foundation hosted a historic first day of issuance ceremony at the White House for the USPS Harvey Milk Forever Stamp, marking the first time that an openly LGBT official has joined the limited number of "great and accomplished Americans to grace the corner of an envelope and represent the US to the world".

Harvey Milk believed that government should represent individuals, not just downtown interests, and should insure equality for all citizens while providing needed services. He spoke for the participation of LGBT people and other minorities in the political process. The more gay people came out of the closet, he believed, the more their families and friends would support protections for their equal rights. In the years since Milk's assassination, public opinion has shifted on gay marriage, gays in the military, and other issues, and there have been hundreds of openly LGBT public officials in America, yet the work continues. The Harvey Milk Foundation, established by his nephew, Stuart Milk, and Anne Kronenberg, his campaign manager and aide, is dedicated to realizing his vision of equality and authenticity for everyone, everywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harvey Milk, was a visionary civil and human rights leader who became one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977.

# data[].attributes.headline
What challenges did Harvey Milk face as one of the first openly gay elected officials

# data[].attributes.subject
What challenges did Harvey Milk face as one of the first openly gay elected officials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HUSL Library: A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: Harvey Milk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide focuses on the civil rights that various groups have fought for within the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did Harvey Milk influence the LGBTQ+ community?

# data[].attributes.subject
How did Harvey Milk influence the LGBTQ+ community?

# data[].attributes.headline
How did Harvey Milk’s background and personal experiences shape his activism?

# data[].attributes.subject
How did Harvey Milk’s background and personal experiences shape his activism?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Harvey Milk was elected 47 years ago this November, he became one of the first openly gay people in public office. With a seat on the San Francisco board of supervisors-essentially the city council-Milk was viewed as a promising political force. His career was cut short just over a year after his election, when he was murdered alongside the then-mayor of San Francisco by a homophobic political rival out to settle a personal score. Today, he is one of the most recognizable gay icons of the 20 th century. But his story has been sanitized and sanded down to blurb size over the years, such that mainstream mentions of his life rarely capture much of who he actually was.

I didn't know a lot about Milk beyond the broad strokes of his brief political career before I started reporting Slow Burn: Gays Against Briggs, the latest season of Slate's narrative history podcast. It wasn't clear to me whether he'd become a gay rights icon primarily because of his martyring or because he was truly a singular leader. After spending seven months immersed in the story of the Briggs Initiative, a 1978 ballot proposition that would have banned gay teachers from California public schools-which Milk made his name organizing against-I have a much deeper understanding of the man whose name now graces a U.S.
Navy ship and an airport terminal at SFO. I learned, from first-hand accounts, that scores of young queer San Franciscans really did see him as a once-in-a-generation leader who gave them new hope for a brighter gay future, and that he was a natural politician in the purest sense, with a talent for building coalitions, solving problems, and making people feel heard. But I also realized that part of what made Harvey Milk special is that, by most conventional and tangible measures, he wasn't special at all.

Milk's young adulthood was a microcosm of gay life in mid-century America. He left the military with a "less than honorable" discharge after a superior discovered he was gay. One night in 1956, when Milk was 25, he was arrested in Miami along with seven other gay men in what a local police sergeant called a " routine crackdown on perverts." He got a job teaching, but quit after a year, likely due to a fear that he'd be outed. Gay sex was illegal in all 50 states at that time, and teaching licenses were not doled out to criminals.

Milk tried out a slew of different jobs in his 20s and 30s. He worked retail, became an insurance actuary, got into finance, and was even an assistant producer of a Broadway play, which flopped. At the time, Milk was a Republican, and he became an ardent supporter of Barry Goldwater. Though Milk had dated a prominent activist, Craig Rodwell, he was skeptical of and indifferent to the early stirrings of a movement for gay rights.

But his politics began to shift in the late 1960s, with the escalation of the war in Vietnam. He moved to San Francisco for a spell in 1969, and realized how freeing it was to exist in a place where he could live life openly as a gay man. He settled there for good in 1972, part of a massive migration to the gay mecca of the Western world. Between 1972 and 1977, about 100,000 LGBTQ+ people moved to San Francisco. These new residents made up one-seventh of the city's entire population.

Many of the gay newcomers, including Milk and his then-partner, Scott Smith, settled in the Castro District. Soon, Milk began making waves as a neighborhood advocate for the growing gay community there. He decided to run for the board of supervisors for the first time in 1973, having been radicalized by Watergate and two infuriating small-potatoes incidents related to the city government. He was already well-known enough to carry the Castro and other left-leaning neighborhoods, but he didn't have a broad enough base to win the citywide race.

Milk lost two more campaigns in the years that followed. But he kept up his work as a community activist. He organized residents to boycott area businesses that mistreated gays and allied with the Teamsters to get products from the Coors Brewing Company-which was union-busting and engaging in racist and homophobic hiring practices-out of all the gay bars. He stood up for gay victims of hate crimes who were mistreated by the police. As the proprietor of his Castro Street camera store, Milk started the Castro Street Fair to boost the local economy and prove to straight business-owners that the gay influx was good for their bottom line. Within three years, the fair was attracting 100,000 people to the neighborhood.

Through these efforts to give gay people a greater sense of ownership over the city they called home, Milk became the person city officials would contact to get a sense of what was going on in gay San Francisco. He also became a major player in the transformation of the Castro. Over the course of the decade, it turned into one of the country's most vibrant gayborhoods, a place where gay people could find safety, community, and influence in numbers. That influence grew stronger with a successful push in 1976-spearheaded by Milk and others-to change the electoral system such that each member of the board of supervisors now represented a smaller district within the city, rather than all seats being at-large.

Now, the Castro and its surrounding neighborhoods could elect one of their own to the board-someone who didn't need to have the deep pockets and mainstream appeal to win a citywide race. In 1977, they elected Milk.

Though Milk was a trusted community leader, his election was far from inevitable. He won his seat on the board without ever getting the blessing of a major party or San Francisco's gay political establishment. They rejected Milk from his very first campaign for being too raggedy and radical, and for not paying his proverbial dues before seeking office. He never got the endorsement of the city's gay Democratic club-so he ended up starting his own.

Milk earned his seat not through connections, political experience, or material advantage-his camera shop barely, if ever, turned a profit-but through relentless hard work and thousands of conversations with his neighbors about how their lives could be better. He was driven by a deep-seated anger with a system that trod over city residents who most needed support, and he wasn't dissuaded by the moneyed gays who mocked and dismissed him.

He was also imperfect. He had a quick temper and a loud yell. His big personality chafed at some people, who accused him of being an ego-driven self-promoter. (That may be true-people who knew him told me that he thought himself the only person who could stop John Briggs. But this is the case for most candidates for political office, though only some of them get flak for it.) The buttoned-up gays thought he was too extreme, and gay lefties thought him insufficiently militant.

Milk knew that he didn't appeal to everyone. But he tried to make his detractors feel like he represented them, too. In the campaign against the Briggs Initiative, he was an indispensable bridge between the various factions of the gay rights movement that launched their own disparate efforts to fight back. And he didn't abandon his local constituents during that statewide campaign: One activist told me about a time when she informed Milk that a Castro café run by her lesbian-feminist collective was having problems with a permit they needed to hold evening performances. Milk found a permit they could afford and personally delivered it that day.

Milk came to politics in his early 40s, later in life than many others in the movement. I believe that's one of the reasons why he was so effective. He paired the idealism and raw passion of a new activist with the poise and practicality of a seasoned professional. He took decades to find his place and his purpose; when he arrived there, he had earned the wisdom to serve as a mentor and was full of fresh outrage at the injustices he saw.

But though Milk was a remarkably gifted communicator, he was able to gain the confidence of his community precisely because he wasn't a born politician. He was a barely-scraping-by small businessman who'd survived a lifetime of homophobic discrimination and violence, just like everyone else. He patronized the neighborhood haunts and flyered the telephone poles, just like everyone else. When gay-bashers roamed the Castro in the wee hours, targeting men leaving the bars, Milk was on the sidewalks caring for the victims, just like everyone else. And like so many other gay men and lesbians of his generation, he lost his partner, Jack Lira, to suicide, only a few months before his own death.

In my Slow Burn reporting, I met with several people who were close to Harvey Milk and listened to their reflections on what he'd meant to them. But the perspective on Milk that struck me the hardest came from a contemporaneous assessment delivered six months after his death. It was in an audio recording I found from a demonstration at San Francisco City Hall in May 1979, on the day Milk's killer was convicted. It's a blistering, off-the-cuff speech given by Amber Hollibaugh, a working-class, high-femme lesbian who committed some of the most striking acts of bravery of the anti-Briggs campaign (and died just a few weeks before I began my reporting). Before a crowd of thousands of furious, grieving gay people, Hollibaugh clambered up the steps of City Hall and began yelling into a megaphone. "It's time we stood up for each other!" she screamed. "That's what Harvey meant to us. He wasn't some big leader-he was one of us."

It seems to me that that side of Milk-the radical, raggedy, inexperienced, struggling, dead-broke, controversial, yet enormously effective organizer who inspired people to demand better for themselves and their peers-has been lost over the years. In 2008, pegged to the release of the Oscar-winning biopic Milk, NPR's Neda Ulaby asked a smattering of young San Franciscans what they thought about Harvey Milk. Many didn't know much about him at all. One then-24-year-old at an LGBTQ community center told Ulaby that Milk's memory was no longer relevant or necessary. "I feel like we've got lots of white male gay heroes around here doing lots of different things," they said. "I mean, we have tons of gay elected officials."

1. The True Purpose of Elon Musk's Weekend Email Ultimatum to Federal Workers

2. Trump and Hegseth Just Signaled Terrifying Plans. The Pentagon and Congress Must Act.

3. This Guy Might Be Even Worse Than Musk

4. This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only
The Supreme Court Ducked Another Big Abortion Case. Clarence Thomas Is Livid.

To my mind, Milk isn't best remembered as a hero. He was just a person who tried his best to make things better where he was. His most impressive feats, including his advocacy for the Castro and his efforts to defeat the Briggs Initiative, came outside of his official duties. He didn't need the imprimatur of the voting public to make a difference; he won his election because he'd already made one.

Some historical icons are worth remembering because they were extraordinary people who did extraordinary things. Milk should be remembered for his ordinariness. His story is a rallying cry, showing that it's never too late to find a new passion and pursue it with gusto. It's a reminder that doing good work doesn't have to mean tackling intractable national problems-that small-time, local advocacy can make meaningful changes in people's lives. And it shows today's queer activists that whatever they have to give to the fight is more than enough. Sometimes, a person who seemingly doesn't have much to contribute to a movement can be exactly what the movement needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Really Made Harvey Milk an Icon Worth Emulating

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most people are remembered for what is extraordinary about them. I think the gay rights icon is different.

# data[].attributes.headline
1. What did they do to make a difference?

# data[].attributes.subject
1. What did they do to make a difference?

# data[].attributes.body
Harvey Milk was California's first elected official to openly identify as gay. As a city supervisor in San Francisco, he advocated for LGBTQ+ rights, anti-discrimination legislation, and social justice. His endeavors resulted in the enactment of a gay rights law safeguarding individuals from bias in employment and housing. He motivated numerous individuals before being sadly murdered in 1978

# data[].attributes.headline
2. What did they do to make a difference?

# data[].attributes.subject
2. What did they do to make a difference?

# data[].attributes.body
Harvey Milk additionally played a role in organizing and bringing together marginalized groups, inspiring LGBTQ+ people to embrace their identities openly. He established strong partnerships with labor unions and various minority groups, enhancing the struggle for social justice and equal rights beyond merely the LGBTQ+ community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who Was Harvey Milk? | Teaching Wiki | Twinkl Fact Files

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Want to educate your students about the politician and gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk? Then check out this informative “Who Was Harvey Milk?” Teaching Wiki!

# data[].attributes.headline
Were the individual’s/group’s actions effective?

# data[].attributes.subject
Were the individual’s/group’s actions effective?

# data[].attributes.body
Anti-Discrimination Laws Enacted – Milk effectively advocated for San Francisco’s Gay Rights Ordinance, which prohibited discrimination due to sexual orientation in housing, jobs, and public facilities.

Defeated Proposition 6 – He was instrumental in overcoming the Briggs Initiative (Proposition 6), a suggested legislation that aimed to prohibit LGBTQ+ educators from teaching in California schools.

Inspired Future Activism – His leadership and untimely death ignited a worldwide LGBTQ+ rights movement, motivating upcoming activists and political figures to persist in the struggle for equality.